Re: Radiation Records Being Investigated

[Vincent Burkes <burkes.1@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu>]

Good Morning. We have only met once and it was a pleasure. However, I
take exception to what I thought I read in this posting to RADSAFE.
Safety training of staff who worked at these places and monitoring that
they were indeed observing the rules should have been paramount. I have
little doubt that for the most part that did happen. In the mid-sixties I
worked on a weapon and system where we were given non-sparking tools to
use. No one said a thing about safety precautions until we told "The
Senior Chief" that parts of the tools appeared to be breaking off in
use. He checked WITH SOMEBODY and immediately ordered us to stop
using THESE NON-SPARKING BERYLLIUM TOOLS. THATS WHEN WE "THE
CREW" CHECKED INTO IT OURSELVES AND FOUND OUT ABOUT BERYLLIOSIS.
I strongly recommend that we wait until the investigations are complete.
Paying the workers approximately $100,000  is not a lot of money.
Especially when they are dying from something probably caused in the work
place. I look forward to meeting and talking with you again

At 09:11 AM 3/25/00 -0600, you wrote:
>> Please, what is all this about "fair
compensation?"
>
>Ruth,
>
>In my mind fair compensation is required when the individual is 
>intentionally exposed to radioactive material when that exposure
>was not within the limits intended by the licensee, and, was done
>with total disregard for the employee. If that exposure was the 
>direct cause of the individual's illness, then they should be 
>compensated.
>
>Having said that, an individual who is exposed to radiation as part
>of their "known occupational work", whereby they are
adequately 
>provided training, and provided the knowledge that they are working
>in a radiation environement, and that they do this knowing that 
>there are potential risks, all be it theory, then that individual
>accepts the risks, as we all do, and in that case, they should NOT
>be compensated. In this case, it's part of the job.
>
>So, the difference is when management puts an individual in a high
>risk situation, knowing the consequences, and then does nothing 
>to minimize those risks, and perhaps, per testimony given, hides
>the information, even to the point that the records have been 
>modified (alleged) .. there needs to be accountability.
>
>My opinion ... very few cases will meet this test. But if there is
>proof, so be it, they should be compensated for there is a direct
>correlation to the job and the illness.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Sandy Perle     Tel:(714) 545-0100 / (800) 548-5100            
>Director, Technical    Extension 2306           
>ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Division  Fax:(714) 668-3149 
                         
>ICN Biomedicals, Inc.    E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net    
                           
>ICN Plaza, 3300 Hyland Avenue    E-Mail: sperle@icnpharm.com         
           
>Costa Mesa, CA 92626
>
>Personal Website: 
http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/1205
>ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Website:
http://www.dosimetry.com
>************************************************************************
>The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and
subscription
>information can be accessed at
http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
> 

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html